tv [untitled] July 24, 2013 3:00am-3:31am PDT
level and what is the most maintain able and the one that will have the least and the least positive effect and so we will do that now and because it has changed substantially since 1950. at this point, it changed from the 27 old data that when we will be looking at and bringing to the commission as part of the package of activities a proposal for a new datum, excuse me, a new, elevations because it does not stay static on the single elevation and it moves up and down from time-to-time seasonally, and even they have it from time-to-time. and this is just as quick, we met with the stake holders relative to the lake level last week and we had a constructive meeting with them and one of the things that i committed to allen who will get up and speak and that we will have a new staff gauge that shows the city datum so the people will be able to see physically what the
lake level is and no question about it. >> once that is established do we insert that in the mlu. >> yes, very well. >> all right. >> are you, public comment, then? >> mr. allen. >> >> i enjoy a rec and park and i have been since i was a rug rat and we had a great rec department there and we all played on the play land and so i am comfortable with that.
and we seem to be caught in the redundancy cycle here. and i keep thinking how could we get out of it? and i don't know how to get out of it and i was hoping that at the last minute, after listening to the comments, that i could just take my prepared comments and if i don't stutter, it is going to be a little under three minutes. and i was hoping not to have to give this. but, i am afraid that i have to go forward. so, please bear with me. it should be rejected because it does not meet your conditions for approval. and these conditions, are at the commission meeting may 11th, 2012. and we specifically ask rec and park for the following
information. a long term recreational plan, how financial resources would be secured, how to implement the water shed report, the rec and parks should come back and explain the role as the management of the boat house. i looked at it today and... rec and park is bigger than the two rooms for the (inaudible) that are going to be using the exercise room. i find that mind bogling. >> and unfortunately the proposed mlu language, that you are being asked to approve, will continue to extend the management confusion at the lake and create false expectations, and compromise, salute, performance and accountability. and increased risk of additional cost to tax and rate payers and under mind the public trust because the
proposed mlu language reflects the failed language carried over from the 1950, mlu. the request by the board of supervisors over six years ago for the revised lake merced between rec and park had been ignored by rec and park until just recently. listed are several active examples why the proposed third mlu that continues to support joint department management of the lake should be rejected. first, it was in a short period of time that the very simple, jointly managed boat house renovation project by rec and park and the puc, this $400,000 over the budget, and 6 months behind schedule. the taxpayers expense. second, fishing is a very popular form of recreational activity and lake merced is stocked with fish annually and
to promote the fishing, in california, fish and game schedules two free fishing days annually. and however, for the past several years rec and park department has not announced or promoted the free fishing day schedule at the lake, why is this? >> and third and i am almost finished. >> the $566,000 water shed report paid for by the san francisco utility rate payers was released to the public, january 2011, this report strongly recommended that both storage for the community be expanded at the lake. and the rec and park department has made no effort to act on that recommendation, why? >> this is in spite of the written claims to for the lake. the joint power has not worked for a number of decades, and
please reject the lake merced mlu for the third time thank you. >> gary allen, are you related to dik? >> no. my name is mary allen and i am a member of the sf, crowing club, in fact i run it. >> i would like to tell you about our facility and we have our boats are stored underneath the restaurant behind a huge iron corrugated door, that is opened by pulling on a chain that is attached and engaged by a gear that is about 20 pounds, and it is about 12 inches in diameter, all right?
and this door, and the gear mechanism has not been maintained in 25 years, that i have had experience out there. as far as i know. well, august, 8th, 2011, one of our members was opening the door by pulling on the chain, and the gear is mounted up above at about ten feet high and another member, was standing to the right of her, and just watching. and the shaft of the gear broke, and the gear is 20 pounds, and it fell and hit the other members, and hit the other member on her head. and factoring her... (inaudible) she could have been killed but she was not. and the reports were filed
about this accident, and one was filed by the member who was hit, the victim, and the other or another what is filed by the witness who was opening the door at the time. and another report was filed by the head guard, and chuck, she who is now retired. and the one july ninth, 2013, property manager from park and rec and his assistants came out to delay the site inspection, which was simply just counting of all of the boats so that we could be build properly for our storage fees. i told him about the accident...
>> >> no, no. the gear was fixed. >> the woman that you are referring to and was a few days late she did not want to sue the city, they wanted reimbursement for the medical expenses. >> the city denied her claim. >> when was it fixed? >> it was fixed immediately. >> all right. >> however, i told tom heart about the accident, and about how it was fixed, that the people that fixed it said that it was inspected and maintained about every month. >> like an elevator. >> right. >> and it has never been inspected since. >> and that was two years ago that this accident occurred.
any way. >> i told tom heart about the accident and he said that he did not know anything about it. how could you not know anything about it? this is a big deal. >> it was a big deal to me because i have personally known this person and a friend of hers for the last ten year and we served together on a ballet board and when i heard her story i could not believe it. >> any way, what i am telling you is that how can a manager not hear about this accident and not come out or have the people come out to inspect this gear and the door mechanism on a regular basis so that this does not happen again, i am telling you also that there are two doors like this, one door, and enters into our area, where we store our boats. and the other door is in another area where there are
children coming in on a daily basis to get their life jackets so that they can go kayak on the other lake. this needs to be taken care of. >> absolutely. >> i told tom that we need to have this inspected and maintained. >> you should tell him that. >> and on july ninth. >> of this year. >> of this year. >> and his response was? >> and he said that he would file a work order. >> and? >> i never heard anything. >> did he say anything about the work order that he filed? >> i don't know anything about it. >> any way, i am just telling you that if park and rec can't do their job, they should be fired. >> that is all that i have to tell you. >> all right thank you so much.
>> it seems to me that the rec and parks responsibility to maintain and inspect from the pec to do so? we want to make sure that you know, all of these kinds of situations are indeed covered, and perhaps the details might not be, and but something like the inspection of property and maintenance, you know, property. and under the responsibility, you know that the funding will be provided to maintain the public access facilities. right? >> i don't know if that is the right section, it is c5. >> okay. >> i guess that my question is it anyone's responsibility but the parks and is it
responsibility for the puc to pay for the ongoing maintenance and inspection of facilities. >> i think in this case, i think that mr. ginsberg can speak to it because the boat house is theirs. >> it is our responsibility to fix and it is that simple and i think that through the important i know that you are in a difficult position because you are not familiar with the day-to-day, and we have a system and we have thousands of them throughout our system and we prioritize them based on the health and safety needs. >> and i am sure that you are. >> but in the end, i respect you very much, but at the end, is it mr. heart is not on top of this... >> and then we... >> and mr. heart, actually filed the claim of the
structural maintenance staff. and our structural maintenance staff is responsible for the upkeep. >> why at the moment of the accident but it was to have a regular maintenance. and we don't know that that is not happening with all due respect. >> we were told that it wasn't. >> and he was told by mr. heart and he personally was not familiar with a particular issue. and they should have gotten back to her and so that they could respect to her friend and i could report to my friend who was injured in this accident. >> so this just if i may with respect to just a general understanding because the commissioner raised an issue right? and so clearly if we moved this forward and because we represent the rec and maintenance and we could get through that to the other afternoons because i text bill
after midnight. so you will have dominion and control of that land. >> right? >> the member of the city attorney's office. and under the charter, the recreation and parks department has jurisdiction over recreational activities. >> we own a lot of infrastructure and we have certain limited funds and i think that as part of the annual report they are going to identify the needs, the capital
assessment and also, the plan fixing these failing facilities. so, i think i understand that you may have thousands of needs based on your funding and limitation, and i just, i think that the communication was the issue of, you know, how do you communicate to you people who rent your facilities? >> commissioner? >> okay. >> and my question is that i actually see it elsewhere here and i think that it is clear, and it was just to make sure that it is in an mlu and we understand that who is responsible for what. >> yeah. >> and yeah. >> i understand it and i am saying to you that i think that for the larger capitol issues i think that there is language in the mlu that the discussions of how we are partnering on the capitol investments in the boat house and we are the property manager and it is our responsibility. >> right. >> thank you. >> so, if in response to the issues that were raised by mr.
allen do you want to respond? >> i think that i sort of covered it before, i think that it is time to sort of focus forward, and not focus on the past and we recognize the importance in the wake and we fully support the clubs interest in the desire and in the ex-expanded facility at some point and i think that this is really about the to quote it, the opportunity of and rather than the or. and meaning that if there does come a day where the clubs
alle n's recommendation are pretty slam dunk like six months behind. >> i can find out the date and the department of fishing days and we will gladly promote them. >> and then, lastly, this water shed report, and that the community will be expanded to storage, you are working on that as well? >> commissioner, that is where the infrastructure and it goes to the boat house and it is the only space that exists and i think that what we are going to
be able to do with the grant that we obtain from the department of building and water ways to improve north lake access, it is possible and i don't know exactly how that or those grant funds willing spent because there is more needs and there needs to be more dock work and more on the north lake and it is possible that if there is additional storage infrastructure and it is possible, that with some additional storage on the north lake we could fill up the storage on the boat house. but that is a problem, more related to the popularity of rowing and you know, the building is what it is sir. and i think that you would have the community has our support and you would have to have our partnership in looking to expand opportunities to build a sport, having grown up in philadelphia that i know very well. >> what is the budget for that expanding that storage space?
>> well, the budget for building the boat house is really the question. >> right. >> and you know, the infrastructure is in the bottom of the boat house, again, what it is, given the clubs that are there and really it requires, and unless there are other creative ideas that we could figure out how to fund, and it further requires a bigger boat house and one of the things that can be done is that we are looking at whether or not we can off load and book correctly and i think that the driving boat was used and it could have a little bit of access under the boat house and if we were able to improve the space and that will free up a little bit of space. what will free up the space is our policy decision is to put all of the equipment upstairs and that was a policy decision that was made with the boater's best interest at heart and it could have given them more room because right now they have to pull out the equipment and work
outside of the boat house and it is just too cramped space. and we understand that and we think that by putting all of the fitness equipment upstairs that will also help to make the down stairs space a little bit less cramped. >> any other questions? >> yes, comment? >> comment. >> i sense the problem here is that we have been talking about this for a long time and nothing seems to get done. and so if we could move forward and accomplish maybe each one thing, that would give encouragement to everyone, and that is what i am hearing. that is why we are talking about it. >> commissioner this is a conversation that has gone on over ten years and i think that if we take a second and we look at the progress and the real progress that has been made, from at least one small and one new doc to the decision of the creative work to figure out how to fund the boat house and the
decision to put it in the lake merced in the bond and our decision to apply for a grant from the department of water ways and our decision to apply for a recreation grant that has allowed us to purchase a lot of kayaks and paddle sports that are out at the lake now and so that i think and we see more that he feels like he hears the same thing over again, and i am hearing the same thing over again too. >> >> i am hearing the same thing and the past is the past is the past and i think that if you look at the two years of partnership and particularly the time that we have had to work together with kelley and i, and there have been more strides in the last 24 months than in the prior decade and i would like us to see us to come together and i know that he will keep us on our toes and keep us honest, but i would like to and it is time for us to actually get to work and to stop talking about process and talking about the work.
>> commissioner moran has a question. >> i would like to make some pretty significant progress and i think that is pretty much what we have in front of us, and at the various issues that we have been talking about for a very long time, the one issue that has if anything, obsured the issues that the puc should take over the recreation activities and i know that some of the advocates very much want us to do that. and the mlu that is in front of us, are going in the other direction and it makes clear, that rec and park, is responsible for recreation decisions. and there are some other provisions as to how they should go about doing that but in general they say that is their job not ours. >> i think that is correct, if
rec and park decides that you know, providing facility of north lake is a way of providing the relief at the boat house, god bless you and i think that is your decision and i don't want to get in the middle of that. and you are more in contact and in touch with the needs of the community than i am as respect to the recreation. and the mlu does make specific reference to the lake merced water shed report and that is incorporated specifically by reference. and i think that it makes it clear, that, the puc's interest, are in terms of water level, water quality, and the maintenance of the water shed and also have a particular interest which i think it was a liability interest, but, if it were the case, that rec and park at some point failed to
the facilities and allowed it to exist that were dangers that the puc because we own the land and that is having a physical problem and a risk problem or a liability problem, and the financial problem because we are the deep pockets and we have a political problem and so i think that we have an interest in avoiding that kind of circumstance, i think that the amendments that have been proposed today try to traes that and say that your planning process needs to be public and enlightened and involved in that and annual report. and they will give us a very specific information and so that i think it gets us, very
where we need to go and i don't expect, some of the boat house folks will be happy, with our saying that rec and park is responsible for recreation. but where we are going to disagree and i think that is an appropriate out come. and we have distributed with the package and we had the mlu and a resolution to put that in force. we have introduced some changes to the language of the mlu. and sitting next to our counsel, i have been handed an amendment to the resolution. which will make the rest of it happen if i get this right. and that is >> your amendment is not in the resolution. >> it is not. >> but you are incorporating it if >> yeah. >> all right. >> so we are incorporating mr.
ritchi's amendment and vice president courtney's amendments? >> yes. and the, just a minute... the word is... >> right here. okay. so, first of all, if i could move the item so that then i could move the amendment to it. >> do you want to add another amendment. >> i second the motion. >> right. >> but what i would like to do is move the basic on the ago agenda so that i could move the amendment which will make all of the other changes. >> we will have to make two amendments. >> we can make one that will incorporate all of that. >> that is how you want to proceed? >> right. >> that is basically i will advice the counsel the way to make it happen. >> we will get the public comment once we get the item.
>> second, the two motions on the table. >> the motion on the table. >> and i would like to move an amendment >> all right. >> to the resolve clause. >> all right. >> so that it all of it reads the same, that this commission her by authorizes them to execute a memo of understanding between the sfpdc and the san francisco rec and parks commission regarding management of the merced track with amendments to band e approved by the commission at the july 23, 2013 meet that is the addition. >> and the series of amendments. >> that is the motion. >> and comment. >> and that is it. >> second it. >> okay. >> eric brooks, san francisco green party and local grassroots association.
first i want to tell commissioner courtney that we need to provide the pathways for this and to support that and we want to concur with commissioner caen that we need to have an amendment for the lake and unfortunately i am just going to have to reiterate what i said the last few times that i got up and spoke on this you and that is that, it is a purpose to that, i would have to say, that the issue is not just communication, the issue is that the gear should not have fallen in the first place because it should have been done properly so that no one would have been hurt in first place and that is a microkas um for the real thing. in a rational word it is to think that rec and park should handle recreation because it is one of its names but in the real world we have situations where for example, a sharp park, rec and park, has much
more respect for recreation than it has in being an endangered species. and as in the shot over the endangered species is the golf. and that is just an example. there are many other cases where rec and park has not held on the law and environmental community and a lot of other folks in the community, we are up and regularly up in arms about it. and etc.. >> and concentrating more on privatizing and making money than protecting habitat. >> with this lake it is a water shed habitat and the sftuc is an entity that handles the water shed habitats all of the time and pretty excellent of working them out. and during the water system improvement program it is doing a good job as working out what to do with salmon and other species that need protection and what to do about how to ec